Every week, our panel of sports fans discusses a topic of the moment. For today's conversation, Jake Simpson (writer, The Atlantic), Hampton Stevens (writer, ESPN and The Atlantic), and Patrick Hruby (writer, ESPN and The Atlantic) talk about the sport that best defines America.

Independence Day is America's loudest party. This week we celebrate ourselves and our Creator-endowed, unalienable right to overeat and blow stuff up. On this Red, White, and Blue holiday, let's talk about the Most American Sport. Out of all the games we play and watch, guys which one do you think best represents the character of the nation?

Soccer is obviously out. Fútbol is the world's game, not ours. The same goes for golf, tennis, hockey, and most Olympic events. None of them began here, and the whole world plays them. Any game to be deemed "Most American" would need to be, like the country itself, blessed and/or cursed with a air of exceptionalism.

Basketball has that. The game started here, and was founded by an immigrant. It's also rigorously democratic. Every player is governed by the same rules. Everyone plays both offense and defense. Everyone can handle the ball and score. Freedom, baby, yeah!

Basketball, like America, has also been exported. Over the last century, the game has gone from an experiment solely for Young Male Christian Athletes in Massachusetts —shades of Plymouth Colony—to a game played at the highest level on every continent. In that sense, basketball's spread echoes the rise of American cultural influence in general, and the sport has become one of our calling cards overseas—a weapon in the arsenal of our cultural imperialism, just as surely as rock and roll, blue jeans, Twitter, Coke, and, duh, Nike are.

But hoops has too much flow. The Most American Sport has to be what Fitzgerald called one of "our nervous and sporadic games." That leave NASCAR out, too—despite having the most unflinchingly patriotic fans. Baseball has long been lumped with Mom and Apple pie as a symbol of Americana, of course, but I'd argue the incredibly obvious point that the game has always served as more of a refuge from modern American life, rather than a reflection of it.

Which brings us to the other incredibly obvious point. The most American Sport is pro football. It's the league with stars and stripes on its logo shield. The NFL—a technocratic, legalistic, half-noble, half-savage spectacle that can disgust you one moment and inspire you the next—is the game that, for better and worse, represents us the best.

Guys, you have the right to free speech, thanks to the founders. Anyone care to use it here and disagree?

–Hampton

I'll exercise my oh-so-American First Amendment right, Hampton. Has football been known for nearly 100 years as "America's Pastime"? Did former U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes give football its own special antitrust exemption because it was a series of exhibitions, rather than a business? Is the quintessence of Americana, as you so succinctly put it, Mom, apple pie, and football?

No on all counts. Baseball is the thing, and from its history to its tirelessness to its egalitarianism, it is the most American of sports.

First of all, baseball's been around for more than 150 years, and the MLB started in 1876 (or about 32 years before the Cubs won their last World Series). It was the first sport to move a marquee franchise to the West Coast (the Dodgers and Giants) and the first league to implement full-scale racial integration. It has a pedigree that even football can't match—to wit, there have been 46 Super Bowls and 107 World Series.

Baseball also captures a key American value: working until the job is done, no matter how long it takes. Is it truly American to simply go home when the clock runs out, as in football and basketball? What are we, Greeks? Here in AMERICA, we play all nine innings, all 27 outs, and we'll gladly go to extra innings if it means getting the job done right. The clock never runs out in baseball, and there's something very "Mom and apple pie" about that.

Baseball's also a sport for people of all body types, from David Eckstein to Pablo Sandoval to the literally one-handed Jim Abbott. Sure, the NFL had Tom Dempsey and his clubfoot, but baseball had ol' one arm himself, Pete Gray. No matter how you slice it, baseball is more inclusive a sport.

All that's noise, though, compared to the real reason. Football, with its sideline "cheer-babes," overcommercialization, Bud Light ads, heavy hitting and heavier bragging, may well be what American is. But baseball, with its crisp summer evenings and pristine visages occasionally interrupted by the refreshing crack of bat on ball, is the America we'd like to be.

Is there a sport out there we missed, Patrick? Or are we on the right American track?

–Jake

Jake,

You make a good argument. So does Hampton. Baseball truly is an all-American pastime—as much as any bastardization of the British Empire's most enduring export, cricket, can be. And to borrow from George Will, football really does combine the two most salient aspects of modern American life: violence and committee meetings.

Still, both of you are wrong.

Baseball is so 19th century: agrarian and pastoral, a dawdling game for an analog nation, made tolerable by liberal application of beer, a sport so sporadically exciting that the players require chemical stimulants to stay awake. And football? 20th century, through and through, a brain-mashing metaphor for land acquisition via physical intimidation and harm, suffused with quasi-military language and culture and wrapped in a bow of technocratic inscrutability. Yossarian would fit right in.

Gentlemen, look forward. Not backward. Acknowledge that the most American of sports—here, now, in the 21st century, the age of the iPhone and the God Particle, if not yet the flying car—is, in fact, a video game. Madden NFL.

I'm completely serious.

First and foremost, Madden-playing is a sport. At least as much as poker. And chess. And golf. It takes physical skill, perpetual practice and surprising stamina. Winners are crowned; losers are humbled; mastery is rewarded. More to the point, you can make money playing it. Though that alone isn't what makes Madden America's Game.

No, what makes Madden the quintessential sport for our era is the game's connection to the zeitgeist, the way it contains cultural multitudes. Madden is a branding story: cover athletes, commercials, catch phrases, a fake national holiday, a titular celebrity endorser who—as Obi-Wan might put it—has become more brand than man. The game is a business story, too, one that mirrors the best (crafty entrepreneur with a dream creates disruptive hit product) and worst (too-big-to-fail corporate behemoth crushes competitors with cash to create de facto market monopoly) aspects of modern American aspirational capitalism.

Then there's this: Madden is exactly the way we now experience sports. And frankly, the whole wide world. Through display screens. In perpetually mediated fashion. Clickable, malleable, and customizable. We have seen the cosmos, and it is us. The Washington Redskins stink? Not after I'm done with franchise mode. Is Madden real? Does real matter? The game is as real as "Dancing With the Stars" and all things Kardashian. It's an entertainment product, and above all else, we are an entertainment culture. The only real sins in contemporary America are to: (a) be boring; (b) stay that way. In its endless iterating, its constant tweaking and changing and restless self-reinvention, Madden works hard to avoid that fate—as does America itself.

To put things another way: the beauty of America is that things always change. The Constitution is flexible. We're not wedded to the past. We barely remember it. Does anyone remember Madden's horrible passing cone?

Jake, Hampton, our great nation just celebrated its 236th birthday. Two-plus centuries from now, I don't know if we'll still be playing football (we're a land of spacious skies, amber waves, and trial lawyers) or baseball (we're going to need better amphetamines). But I'm sure we will still be playing video games. Which means, in a way, America will still be playing Madden. Even if it's simulating Rollerball.

Most Popular

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why did Trump’s choice for national-security advisor perform so well in the war on terror, only to find himself forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency?

How does a man like retired Lieutenant General Mike Flynn—who spent his life sifting through information and parsing reports, separating rumor and innuendo from actionable intelligence—come to promote conspiracy theories on social media?

Perhaps it’s less Flynn who’s changed than that the circumstances in which he finds himself—thriving in some roles, and flailing in others.

In diagnostic testing, there’s a basic distinction between sensitivity, or the ability to identify positive results, and specificity, the ability to exclude negative ones. A test with high specificity may avoid generating false positives, but at the price of missing many diagnoses. One with high sensitivity may catch those tricky diagnoses, but also generate false positives along the way. Some people seem to sift through information with high sensitivity, but low specificity—spotting connections that others can’t, and perhaps some that aren’t even there.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.

Trinidad has the highest rate of Islamic State recruitment in the Western hemisphere. How did this happen?

This summer, the so-called Islamic State published issue 15 of its online magazine Dabiq. In what has become a standard feature, it ran an interview with an ISIS foreign fighter. “When I was around twenty years old I would come to accept the religion of truth, Islam,” said Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, recalling how he had turned away from the Christian faith he was born into.

At-Trinidadi, as his nom de guerre suggests, is from the Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), a country more readily associated with calypso and carnival than the “caliphate.” Asked if he had a message for “the Muslims of Trinidad,” he condemned his co-religionists at home for remaining in “a place where you have no honor and are forced to live in humiliation, subjugated by the disbelievers.” More chillingly, he urged Muslims in T&T to wage jihad against their fellow citizens: “Terrify the disbelievers in their own homes and make their streets run with their blood.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

The combination of suspicion and reverence that people feel toward the financially successful isn’t unique to the modern era, but reflects a deep ambivalence that goes back to the Roman empire.

In the early 20th century, Dale Carnegie began to travel the United States delivering to audiences a potent message he would refine and eventually publish in his 1936 bestseller, How To Win Friends and Influence People: “About 15 percent of one’s financial success is due to one’s technical knowledge and about 85 percent is due to skill in human engineering—to personality and the ability to lead people.” Carnegie, who based his claim on research done at institutes founded by the industrialist Andrew Carnegie (unrelated), thus enshrined for Americans the notion that leadership was the key to success in business—that profit might be less about engineering things and more about engineering people. Over 30 million copies of Carnegie’s book have been sold since its publication.